Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Mark.JUK writes "The European Parliament has surrendered to pressure from Member States (especially France) by abandoning amendment 138, a provision adopted on two occasions by an 88% majority of the plenary assembly, and which aimed to protect citizens' right to Internet access. The move paves the way for an EU wide policy supporting arbitrary restrictions of Internet access. Under the original text any restriction of an individual could only be taken following a prior judicial ruling. The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force Internet providers (ISPs) into disconnecting their customers from the Internet (i.e. such as when 'suspected' of illegal p2p file sharing)."

That nice French law which got pushed through late at night when most members of the parliament had already left the building...
To be fair, it got revoked later on, and was voted on honestly. But the first passing of the law was a big sham.

I guess we then have to rise up, put the politicians to the sword, and burn their property, while taking adequate precausions to safeguard the conformerity with the idea that their life and property is sanctosant.

But the guillotine is so much more fun! You can play bowling with their heads. Or try talking to them afterwards:

"I called in a strong, sharp voice: "Languille!" I saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contractions I insist advisedly on this peculiarity but with an even movement, quite distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people awakened or torn from their thoughts.

"Next Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves. I

The early years of the U.S. were not perfect - but it was headed in the right direction - with near-perfection achieved between 1870 and 1930. The three thousand-year-old slavery/serfdom institution had finally been killed off, the Bill of Rights had risen to prominence, and the government was so small most Americans never even noticed it.

But since 1910 it seems we've been going backwards. We are being turning back into serfs with the oligarchs as our master, and no rights as individuals. It's almost exactly the same pattern that happened in Rome from 300-500 A.D... the landlords slowly but surely turned the middle class into a serf class of debtors... and medieval Europe was born.

It effects them in other ways as well. If a larger business doesn't wish to compete with a smaller, home-based business, all they need to do is accuse them thrree times of copyright infringement.
This could also be used to crush all but the ruling political party, prohibit free speech, and eliminate anything the government or large corporations don't want people to hear about. This is great for aspiring dictators, who can now rise to power without changing a single law or firing a single bullet.

Article 11 - "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." "The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected."

One could also argue that blocking the internet interferes with Article 14 - "Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training." Think of the children! They will be cut off from access to online education.

And Articles 47 "Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article." - and 48 - "Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

The Three-Strike law is clearly unconstitutional within the EU's dominion.

Do you work for RIAA? You seem to share the same inability to understand basic human rights. No matter. You falsely-presume I'm guilty of strikes one and two. This is what Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Rights is about: The government has to PROVE guilt, not just assume it. The law should be written that FIRST they prove the three strikes are your fault and THEN you get internet cutoff. As currently written they don't have to prove anything - an open invitation for abuse (President Sarkozy could turnoff those he doesn't like, even if they did nothing wrong).

This will be uncontrollable.
People will just setup anonymous free access Wifi everywhere.
Police are busy enough with real crimes, there won't be a way to enforce such a stupidity. Maybe they can create the Internet police, but with what money?

BTW I don't blame all of this on Obama. Our last three presidents all deserve "credit" for this debacle.

Take that just one step further. Do a bit of reserach. Then see for yourself that the very same financial and political interests funded the elections of all three. In many cases, they supported BOTH the Democrat candidate AND the Republican candidate... why it's almost as though they don't care who wins. Notice that, and the bigger picture is within sight.

Meh, where I live (Spain), the left wing is in bed with the (equivalents of the) *AAs and it's in fact the right wing which is promising to abolish compulsive levies on digital storage media (HDDs, cellphones, flash drives, you name it) if they get elected.

These days I find that "left" vs. "right" means pretty much squat. Just vote for the least evil.

I guess I'm missing something obvious or I'm just flat out wrong, but shouldn't that be the other way around? You would forsake liberty (the right to act, unbound) for the sake of freedom (the right to act within the law, ie. to bind). Freedom falls in line with concepts like fraternity or union.

If hackers like ParMaster still exist, the best way to ensure this law is repealed is to ensure that MPs and Ministers are caught under this law and disconnected from internet.Like the immortal Jim Hacker once said: "Not until you face it yourself do you realize what a stupid law you have passed."

Answers to question 1: Because they're lazy. Because their kids/family members are lazy. Because they want it now.

Answers to question 2: Who said anything about the media groups complaining about the MP's and Ministers? Unless there's some clause in the law about the statements being made under penalty of perjury, what's to stop someone from falsely accusing the politicians? Even if there was a perjury clause, pay a homeless person $10 (or the equivalent in Euros) to file the complaints. What are the

The problem is access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms.The government may regulate, restrict and forbid access to it in any arbitrary way just like they may regulate sales of tobacco or speed limits on roads. They don't need a court sentence, they don't even need suspicion. They are allowed to pass a bill that says you need a special government-issued permit to access the Internet and any government clerk may revoke it on discretionary basis, and they aren't breaking any fundamental laws, because there weren't any laws granting you access to the Internet in the first place.

The problem is access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms.
The government may regulate, restrict and forbid access to it in any arbitrary way just like they may regulate sales of tobacco or speed limits on roads. They don't need a court sentence, they don't even need suspicion. They are allowed to pass a bill that says you need a special government-issued permit to access the Internet and any government clerk may revoke it on discretionary basis, and they aren't breaking any fundamental laws, because there weren't any laws granting you access to the Internet in the first place.

... because arbitrary power with no due process and little or no burden of proof on the accuser has always worked out so well in the past.

"access to the Internet is not any of elementary human rights or constitution-granted freedoms."

The air is an information medium with no legal rights attached to it as well. When do they start telling us we can't speak, see, or breathe. When internet becomes defacto standard of communication then it becomes part of "human rights or constitution-granted freedom" by definition change. Otherwise laws couldn't be used other than for what they are stated for.

That depends on where you live [wikipedia.org]. In some places, the internet is a human right. Although I would guess that the law was put in place specifically to prevent the EU from enforcing laws that would cut off people from internet access.

I'm quite sure freedom of initiative is a right on most european countries. Freedom of speech is also so. Now, how come the govenrment can forbid people from contracting access to a comunication media again?

Though you may be referring to EU countries... I find it important, from a US perspective, to reinforce the idea that the Constitution was never intended to grant freedom or rights. It was, and should be a limitation on the powers of government.

"Constitutionally-protected freedoms" would be a better term for it. In the US (and I believe analogously in the EU), while the federal government isn't supposed to be allowed to do anything not explicitly listed in the Constitution, individual states are forbidden from doing anything that violates the federal constitution. Listing a freedom in the constitution shouldn't be taken to mean that anything not listed isn't a right of the people, but that more local governments (states, member nations, cities, etc.) cannot do anything to restrict that freedom.

I'm confused. I thought France was the land of pinko-commie socialists. Can you people please make up your mind and settle on one stereotype? I'd like to know what terms I should use to be a proper American bashing other countries.

Meanwhile in real life, governments the world over are in the pockets of the media industry and their slavish public can't take it in the arse fast enough. Sarkozy is just a politician who's more openly "available" for influence than others, but there's plenty more worms in the EU woodwork. The number of politicians I've seen parroting, word for word, the latest anti-customer campaign about how piracy eats up 92% of the global GDP or some such bullshit makes you lose all faith in humani... sorry, in sentient life the world over.

"I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage."

...and then the EU turns into the USA of the mid 1800s.This seems like the logical conclusion of all this, unless they skip the civil war and go straight to stripping member states of power and consolidating it all in the central government.

Whenever I see stories of other countries governments and corporations (or is there a difference anymore?) trampling over citizens' rights even worse than is done here in the States, it just gives me this warm glowing feeling inside for some reason.

It shouldn't. They are playing leap frog. One side of the Atlantic implements an oppressive law, tax, or spy on your own citizens regime, and then the other side of the Atlantic says, see they did it and it was good so we shall do it too and we can do it even better. Repeat over and over and.... BAMMMM..... you are living in Fascist world.

Both sides of the Atlantic are also passing these same obscene laws because the same multinationals are lobbying, bribing and pressuring politicians the world over to legislate their profitability.

At this point I mostly debate if I lived in a world dominated by Fascist governments or governments which are for all intents and purposes organized crime syndicates, I think a little of both. They are taking vast sums from ordinary people and transferring it to their rich friends and themselves. It boggles the mind that working people in the U.S. are taxed at least 25% income tax and 12.5% payroll taxes(counting the employer half) for 37.5% at a minimum. Billionaire hedge fund operators are taxed at 15%. These same hedge funds manager tax their own clients more than that, over 20% (2% management fees and 20% of profits).

I was watching Frontline on PBS last night on Brookseley Born [wikipedia.org]. A great story. During the Clinton administration she tried to use the authority she had at the obscure Commodities Futures Trading Commission to regulate derivatives. If she had succeeded she might well have prevented at least the AIG part of the recent financial crisis. Instead she was crushed by Alan Greenspan, Phil Graham, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers. Long Term Capital Management collapsed during this period trading derivatives, nearly sparking a major panic, proving Born right and they continued to crush her.

Alan Greenspan supposedly told Born that she was NOT suppose to pursue fraud in derivatives or commodities though it was explicitly in her agencies charter to do just that.

Bob Rubin went on to help lead Citigroup in to complete ruin and billions of tax payer bailouts.

Phil Graham's wife was on the board at Enron, he went to UBS where his Swiss bank ran tax shelters for thousands of wealthy Americans, and was a leading player in the collapse during which he called us all a bunch of whiners.

Larry Summers is now Obama's senior economic adviser.

All four of these people should be run out of every government position, boardroom or any other position of authority because they are a delightful mix of stupid and criminal. Its especially obscene for Larry Summers to be calling the shots on financial matters in the Obama administration. Paul Volcker might actually fix the bankster problem but he has been completely shut out by Summers and Geitner.

I saw that show too, and until then, I thought my opinion of Phil Graham could not get any lower. It has now dropped to where my vocabulary, even when including words like "motherfucker", is not sufficient to describe how I feel about him.

I'm sorry if something is adopted by 88% of the people then it should not be allowed to be removed by a smaller subset of people. If older prestige European countries are able to railroad the EU this way then what is the point for other less-prestigious members to stay?

I'm sorry if something is adopted by 88% of the people then it should not be allowed to be removed by a smaller subset of people. If older prestige European countries are able to railroad the EU this way then what is the point for other less-prestigious members to stay?

If you think about your statement, you'll realize that its two parts are contradictory.

This was a new provision that was rejected - because each country in the EU has a veto against new laws (roughly speaking). Note that this sort of arrangement was put in place explicitly so that the big countries can't "railroad" the small ones into restrictions they do not wish to adopt... (I.e. if a small country wants to adopt a 3-strikes law, it is now not hindered by EU law; if it doesn't want to adopt one, it does

Excuse me? 88% of the parliament used to be for the amendment in its previous form (at least in a preliminary way). The amendment was changed, no doubt because of political compromises that the EP is famous of, and it still passed. Your interpretation is just wrong: these are the same people voting, the original amendment just never ended into a vote.

The story has a similarly biased interpretation: The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting their customers from the Internet. This is not true at all: The original amendment would have made sure ISPs could not do that without a ruling, but the current text doesn't give any legal ground for governments because it doesn't really change anything.

There may be some fishy deals behind this, but let's stick to the facts.

Excuse me? 88% of the parliament used to be for the amendment in its previous form (at least in a preliminary way). The amendment was changed, no doubt because of political compromises that the EP is famous of, and it still passed. Your interpretation is just wrong: these are the same people voting, the original amendment just never ended into a vote.

The story has a similarly biased interpretation: The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting their customers from the Internet. This is not true at all: The original amendment would have made sure ISPs could not do that without a ruling, but the current text doesn't give any legal ground for governments because it doesn't really change anything.

There may be some fishy deals behind this, but let's stick to the facts.

Since the article only mentions that the amendment was approved twice by the plenary assembly and makes no mention whether the rewritten version was even voted on or not by all the members. It seems extremely dubious to me that it was done in that way.

Basically smaller, financially weaker nations, either play by the arbitrary rules of the EU of they face restrictions/taxation on trade and other sort of petty punishments. And of course the stronger factions reserve special privileges for themselves; allowing crap like this to happen.

>>>smaller, financially weaker nations, either play by the arbitrary rules of the EU of they face restrictions/taxation..... of course the stronger factions [France] reserve special privileges for themselves>>>

Sounds like California. So many U.S. laws can be traced back to California. As CA swings so swings most of the union of states.

I wonder how this will affect the recently passed law here in Finland that internet access is a legal right for all citizens. I'm getting pretty tired of France running the show in the EU and getting their ridiculous laws enacted at the EU level.

Which is why the EU should have been designed like the US federal government was originally designed - very limited powers and existing only to provide mutual defence and make it easier to conduct business between the different states / countries. It was foolish of them to let the EU be able to completely trump individual governments laws on issues not regarding the economy or military.

Only because citizens in the US decided that it "wasn't cool" to care about intellectual things. If the individual countries in Europe decided to keep their soverignty, they could make it work better. The key is to not allow the collective government the ability to tax, then it cannot offer bribes.

Yes. It was Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president and the rumour was that the Germans were talking about having him impeached for refusing to sign. Some background in the Economist [economist.com] and The Times [timesonline.co.uk]. Of course, there's history between the Czechs and the Germans as we know...

The problem is that the US Federal Government needs to be able to over-ride State laws in some cases, for example, to protect interstate commerce. What needs to happen is a "scope reduction", not a "power reduction." The Feds should still be able to override State laws, but they should be prevented from making any laws *not* relating to interstate commerce, foreign policy, or defense.

The other thing that bugs me is people trying to amend the Constitution without amending the Constitution-- for example, the lawmakers trying to add extreme restrictions on gun ownership without doing things the proper way and repealing the Second Amendment. If you want gun control, fine-- but you have to repeal the amendment first! You can't shoehorn it in alongside!

If you ask me, I think that your government will likely subsidize the internet access or create local monopolies to make sure everyone is covered and then use those actions to justify intervention along the lines we're all afraid of.

Won't affect it at all - basically, the EU has removed the requirement that member states protect the right to internet access. They can continue to do so, but they are no longer required to. So, if the government of Finland wants to keep that law, they can.

While we have plenty of bad things going on in the US, the frequency that we hear stories like this (or spying on the public, arresting kids for climbing trees, etc) from the EU really amazes me that there are people who try to claim that you have more freedom in Europe than in the US.

We still have but the export of ideas from the US is making the rights and liberties decay over here.
The evil in goverment is coming from the USA. NWO stuff, aiming at control over all angles of society.
Of course it's for catching terrorists and pedophiles. It is evil and everybody knows.
The copyrightlobby is abusing the sheeple.

Don't be ridiculous, America wasn't even discovered when elected representatives were running around in fear giving up liberties to their dictator here in Europe. This has been going back and forth for millennia and mankind is just too stupid to permanently break the cycle.

The French President's already demonstrated the vulnerabilities. If they want to put in 3-strikes disconnection based on accusations alone, target the people who approve of it. They've almost certainly done something that'll justify at least an accusation. Once they've got 3 of them, make a huge stink about the law they insisted be passed and demand that they be subject to it.

I will be very interrested in seeing the trial suites that will be launched if one internet access is cut.

Plus here in France, most of us have multiaccess boxes (DSL bring : internet + TV + phone). Cutting internet means that it would but TV + phone. I don't think this is legal (no consequence). Plus, most ISP provides free wifi access to other customer "boxes". Will they cut also this ? because, if not you will still be able to download... again, will they cut also the 3G network you can have on your phon

This is a public call for a worldwide boycott of all products coming out the entertainment industry, be it movies, music, tv programs, computer games of all sorts and whatever else.this boycott shall continue until they all close shop.

This is a public call for a worldwide boycott of all products coming out the entertainment industry, be it movies, music, tv programs, computer games of all sorts and whatever else.
this boycott shall continue until they all close shop.

Hey, even some members of the entertainment industry are against this... I know Paul McCartney is, anyhow.
And don't boycott any software companies that aren't also in traditional media -- this likely isn't their idea. Films will still have theaters, music will still have radio and PA systems, TV will still have over-the-air broadcasts and DVD box sets -- but an awful lot of software is dependent on the internet to run as intended...

If you read the original article (website) you see a small but important editing: governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting!!

No idea what powers the government in the UK might have, in germany no one can cut me from my internet connection without a judges ruling.

Furthermore, if you read the mentioned article then I see no paragraph that suggests that a "EU Paves the Way For Three-Strikes Cut-Off Policy" is happening at all.

The article clearly states: restrictions may only be taken in exceptional circumstances and imposed if they are necessary, appopriate and proportionate within a democratic society. Copyright violations by no means are a danger to society... unless ruled by a judge otherwise, nor is a cutting of the line in any way appropriated.

So I have the impression that the anti FUD is FUD itselv, very disappointing;D

Ha, what do you expect, when contributors from Europe are for the most part British europhobes, fed from their tender age by MurdochMedia.

Indeed, what the text says is "a judge can order disconnection, given cause", and this got interpreted as "Big Corporations Have The Right To Arbitrarily Disconnect You, And This Right Was Given To Them By The Evil EU/Big Gvt."

in the usa, the story is purely idiot distributors fighting their irrelevancy in the age of the internet

in europe, there is another potent issue that does not exist in the usa: cultural irrelevancy. the french have been fighting to retain french culture for decades: funding french arts, fighting the emergence of english words into french usage, etc

its all rather silly and absurd from an american perspective: hey france, history spoke, and you lost, and the british won. now everyone speaks english in the world, shut up, get over it, and deal with it

but from the point of view of french national pride, you can see why the fight here is not simple and straightforward as it is in the usa

heck, even if you are danish, or belgian: how the hell are you suppose to preserve danish and belgian culture in the face of the english onslaught? protectionism seems appealing. even if, of course, it really makes no difference. its just nostalgia. resistance is futile

perhaps the canadians know best how to deal with being in the cultural shadow of a dominant neighbor: they send their comedians and actors to the usa where they feed that culture sometimes even better than the americans do. i always wondered why the hell there are so many successful canadian comedians in the usa: is there something fundamentally more absurd about being canadian? (snicker)